Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[SpheresOfBalance]

Civilization is a construct of humanity that has many built in wrongs that are forced down the throats of the have-not's by the, at least in their twisted minds, elites; (from now on, referenced as "selfish fools,") as this is a title true to form.

You really believe that someone sat done and constructed civilization as a plan?
There you go again being stupid!

My primary concern is the land issue; property? The American Indians had it right in so many ways, they had the truest form of democracy, the least nature destroying footprint, and saw that no man owns this earth we're on, to name but a few of the ways they were, more in keeping with truth, than the invading Europeans.

So you agree with Marx that property is theft and that it should be redistributed or at least owned in common?
I've never read Marx, what I said was my belief, unlike you; parrot!


I think your view of this noble savage a little naive. You think we should return to this 'democracy' where fifty percent were subservient? Where ones enemies were chattel? You think that if the Indians had not been invaded they would have stayed in their ways? Not changed and developed new methods of production as their population increased? Created new political structures, etc.
A fool in your presumption, as usual!

There's also a discussion going on about the impact of the Indians ancestors upon the ecology of the time.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... tocene.htm

The construct of civilization is such that the wrongs of the past are held fast ensuring the 'selfish fools' maintain their property that was stolen from their fellow men and women centuries ago. Additionally, it maintains their base of, would be, slaves through being bound by the terms of the so called civilized construct.

And your solutions?
Time shall solve mankind's problems it's just a shame that the good, such as myself, can't avoid it.

Everyone wants peace and freedom, but the terms of it's keeping, should have only been put into place, after the wrongs of the past were put right, because now, as I said earlier, the terms of civilized behavior, lock in the status quo of inequality, as you'll never see any of the 'selfish fools,' attempting to right their legacy of wrongs, voluntarily.

And your solutions? As Marx had one but most appeared to not like it.
Selfishness does abound, look into the mirror! You're the classic example of what's wrong with humanity.

[Arising_uk]

There you go again being stupid!

Or you use words loosely upon a philosophy forum.

I've never read Marx, what I said was my belief, unlike you; parrot!

Do you have a solution like he did?

A fool in your presumption, as usual!

Ever going to back this statement up? Or will you just re-parrot it every time.

Time shall solve mankind's problems it's just a shame that the good, such as myself, can't avoid it.

Thats your solution! How will it do that?

But lmao at the 'good', what was that you said about elitism?

Selfishness does abound, look into the mirror! You're the classic example of what's wrong with humanity.

But of course you're too high and mighty to be a part as well.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There you go again being stupid!

Or you use words loosely upon a philosophy forum.
No, it's either your mind or fingers that are loose.

I've never read Marx, what I said was my belief, unlike you; parrot!

Do you have a solution like he did?
God you're dense, or 'speak loosely in a philosophy forum,' as how could I possibly know 'I had solution like he did' if I've never read him. Your ridiculousness knows no bounds, it would seem.

A fool in your presumption, as usual!

Ever going to back this statement up? Or will you just re-parrot it every time.
God, you seem to be an idiot, as you don't even know how a parrot mimics you're hopeless! Like I said before, there's no talking to you!

Time shall solve mankind's problems it's just a shame that the good, such as myself, can't avoid it.

Thats your solution! How will it do that?
You figure it out, you insist you're so smart, not!

But lmao at the 'good', what was that you said about elitism?
ROTFLMAO at your confusion!

Selfishness does abound, look into the mirror! You're the classic example of what's wrong with humanity.

But of course you're too high and mighty to be a part as well.
No I'm not high or mighty at all, or there would be no problems, and I'll be damned if I'll join them.

[Arising_uk]

No, it's either your mind or fingers that are loose.

Probably but I don't take it so emotionally.

God you're dense, or 'speak loosely in a philosophy forum,' as how could I possibly know 'I had solution like he did' if I've never read him. Your ridiculousness knows no bounds, it would seem.

I didn't ask you if you knew, as I'd told you. I asked you what solution you have, as he had one.

God, you seem to be an idiot, as you don't even know how a parrot mimics you're hopeless! Like I said before, there's no talking to you!

Especially not if I ask questions it seems.

You figure it out, you insist you're so smart, not!

You mean figure out what your solutions is? Why? When I can ask you. But I guess given your predilection for doom and gloom you think there is going to be some kind of catastrophe or such like that will bring justifiable death and destruction to this wicked and evil world, etc, etc, blah, blah. Or do you mean do I have a solution to the world's ills? such as they are.

ROTFLMAO at your confusion!

Were you being ironic or facetious?

No I'm not high or mighty at all, or there would be no problems, and I'll be damned if I'll join them.

My turn to LMFHO. 'Ow 'umble you are!

[SpheresOfBalance]

No, it's either your mind or fingers that are loose.

Probably but I don't take it so emotionally.
'Your caring's in the gutter, your passion in the sink.'

God you're dense, or 'speak loosely in a philosophy forum,' as how could I possibly know 'I had solution like he did' if I've never read him. Your ridiculousness knows no bounds, it would seem.

I didn't ask you if you knew, as I'd told you. I asked you what solution you have, as he had one.
The point is, if no problem was solved then there was no solution. I think we both know which of us speaks loosely, as I said, you usually merely spit out words to see where they splatter.

God, you seem to be an idiot, as you don't even know how a parrot mimics you're hopeless! Like I said before, there's no talking to you!

Especially not if I ask questions it seems.
Obviously you wouldn't understand the answers unless I provided a dissertation for each, or so your track record would make it seem.

You figure it out, you insist you're so smart, not!

You mean figure out what your solutions is? Why? When I can ask you. But I guess given your predilection for doom and gloom you think there is going to be some kind of catastrophe or such like that will bring justifiable death and destruction to this wicked and evil world, etc, etc, blah, blah. Or do you mean do I have a solution to the world's ills? such as they are.
No, that's truth and proof. The reason we keep going around on all these topics is because you're either one of the problems I refer to, or you only care about argument, but then that would be part of the problem, wouldn't it?

ROTFLMAO at your confusion!

Were you being ironic or facetious?
No, I was honestly referring to your obvious confusion!

No I'm not high or mighty at all, or there would be no problems, and I'll be damned if I'll join them.

My turn to LMFHO. 'Ow 'umble you are!
No just passionate about my honest integrety!

[Arising_uk]

'Your caring's in the gutter, your passion in the sink.'

LMAO! Now what was that about quoting others?

The point is, if no problem was solved then there was no solution. I think we both know which of us speaks loosely, as I said, you usually merely spit out words to see where they splatter.

Nope, what I usually do is ask questions about those topics that interest me. Apparently they cause you discomfort and so you resort to invective and ad hominems.

Obviously you wouldn't understand the answers unless I provided a dissertation for each, or so your track record would make it seem.

Nope, short apposite replies would be fine and a first.

No, that's truth and proof. The reason we keep going around on all these topics is because you're either one of the problems I refer to, or you only care about argument, but then that would be part of the problem, wouldn't it?

I care about clarity, discussion and solutions, its why I come to a philosophy site. Why are you here? Its easy for people to play the "Woe! Is the world" card but in philosophy they usually propose solutions.

No, I was honestly referring to your obvious confusion!

About what? That you consider yourself one of these 'good' but claim anti-elitism?

No just passionate about my honest integrety!

If you say so yourself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

'Your caring's in the gutter, your passion in the sink.'

LMAO! Now what was that about quoting others?

The point is, if no problem was solved then there was no solution. I think we both know which of us speaks loosely, as I said, you usually merely spit out words to see where they splatter.

Nope, what I usually do is ask questions about those topics that interest me. Apparently they cause you discomfort and so you resort to invective and ad hominems.
No, no, no, no, NO! Lets go back to the beginning. You said something in this thread and I attached a message to yours, being very nice, and first trying to impart a perspective that I perceive as relevant, as though you were a colleague, and then went on to say that because of what I see, your words had no meaning "for me." then you jump to all kinds of conclusions, act nasty by trying to place me in your little imaginary box of subordinates. Later you admitted that you had originally not understood.

This current bickering was initially fueled by your misconception, an unwarranted defensive stance, and pigeon holing me through your condescending labeling and has subsequently snowballed out of control in a tit for tat exchange.

In my initial message to you, I hadn't called you anything, so why did you feel it necessary to call me something? I only call people things once they START it, as a means to supply a mirror for their viewing. Do i go WAY over the deep end to try and make the point exceedingly clear? YES, like, WAY overboard. I've always believed that the best way to ensure someone gets it, is to grossly exaggerate the point; so the contrast is great!

I defy you to find one post of mine anywhere on this forum where I initiated the name calling/labeling, like a fucking child. I don't know you people, how could I possibly tell you what you are? And you that try and do so, are fools, or just plain nasty, and would never do so in my presence. You'd look into my twin black holes of pupils and put a cork in it for fear of being sucked into the event horizon, as I peer into your soul!

Someone of true intelligence and wisdom doesn't need to call/label anyone, anything!

Obviously you wouldn't understand the answers unless I provided a dissertation for each, or so your track record would make it seem.

Nope, short apposite replies would be fine and a first.

No, that's truth and proof. The reason we keep going around on all these topics is because you're either one of the problems I refer to, or you only care about argument, but then that would be part of the problem, wouldn't it?

I care about clarity, discussion and solutions, its why I come to a philosophy site. Why are you here? Its easy for people to play the "Woe! Is the world" card but in philosophy they usually propose solutions.

No, I was honestly referring to your obvious confusion!

About what? That you consider yourself one of these 'good' but claim anti-elitism?

No just passionate about my honest integrety!

If you say so yourself.

[Arising_uk]

...
No, no, no, no, NO! Lets go back to the beginning. You said something in this thread and I attached a message to yours, being very nice, and first trying to impart a perspective that I perceive as relevant, as though you were a colleague, and then went on to say that because of what I see, your words had no meaning "for me." then you jump to all kinds of conclusions, act nasty by trying to place me in your little imaginary box of subordinates. Later you admitted that you had originally not understood. ...

Nope, you quoted me and supplied a response. I didn't understand part of the response but replied to its tone as I thought it referred to my words, I also asked questions about what I did understand but you failed to respond to those? You later told me it did not refer to my words but to the original posters, I accepted this and my misunderstanding. I still don't understand what it meant tho'.

This current bickering was initially fueled by your misconception, an unwarranted defensive stance, and pigeon holing me through your condescending labeling and has subsequently snowballed out of control in a tit for tat exchange.

In my initial message to you, I hadn't called you anything, so why did you feel it necessary to call me something? I only call people things once they START it, as a means to supply a mirror for their viewing. Do i go WAY over the deep end to try and make the point exceedingly clear? YES, like, WAY overboard. I've always believed that the best way to ensure someone gets it, is to grossly exaggerate the point; so the contrast is great!

Its your issue that you find categorizations insulting. One that is going to cause problems upon a philosophy site as its a method that philosophy uses due to their being common themes in many of its discussions.

I defy you to find one post of mine anywhere on this forum where I initiated the name calling/labeling, like a fucking child. I don't know you people, how could I possibly tell you what you are? And you that try and do so, are fools, or just plain nasty, and would never do so in my presence. You'd look into my twin black holes of pupils and put a cork in it for fear of being sucked into the event horizon, as I peer into your soul!

As if!

But LMAO at your ego given the words you spout. I still think my bet holds that a high percentage of your discussions fall into such disarray given the fragility and aggression of your psyche.

Someone of true intelligence and wisdom doesn't need to call/label anyone, anything!

Its a philosophy site! As such there are many terms for the contents of most the discussions being had. That many who post here have not had the opportunity to read any philosophy does not mean that the terms are meant as an insult.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
No, no, no, no, NO! Lets go back to the beginning. You said something in this thread and I attached a message to yours, being very nice, and first trying to impart a perspective that I perceive as relevant, as though you were a colleague, and then went on to say that because of what I see, your words had no meaning "for me." then you jump to all kinds of conclusions, act nasty by trying to place me in your little imaginary box of subordinates. Later you admitted that you had originally not understood. ...

Nope, you quoted me and supplied a response. I didn't understand part of the response but replied to its tone as I thought it referred to my words, I also asked questions about what I did understand but you failed to respond to those? You later told me it did not refer to my words but to the original posters, I accepted this and my misunderstanding. I still don't understand what it meant tho'.

This current bickering was initially fueled by your misconception, an unwarranted defensive stance, and pigeon holing me through your condescending labeling and has subsequently snowballed out of control in a tit for tat exchange.

In my initial message to you, I hadn't called you anything, so why did you feel it necessary to call me something? I only call people things once they START it, as a means to supply a mirror for their viewing. Do i go WAY over the deep end to try and make the point exceedingly clear? YES, like, WAY overboard. I've always believed that the best way to ensure someone gets it, is to grossly exaggerate the point; so the contrast is great!

Its your issue that you find categorizations insulting. One that is going to cause problems upon a philosophy site as its a method that philosophy uses due to their being common themes in many of its discussions.

I defy you to find one post of mine anywhere on this forum where I initiated the name calling/labeling, like a fucking child. I don't know you people, how could I possibly tell you what you are? And you that try and do so, are fools, or just plain nasty, and would never do so in my presence. You'd look into my twin black holes of pupils and put a cork in it for fear of being sucked into the event horizon, as I peer into your soul!

As if!

But LMAO at your ego given the words you spout. I still think my bet holds that a high percentage of your discussions fall into such disarray given the fragility and aggression of your psyche.

Someone of true intelligence and wisdom doesn't need to call/label anyone, anything!

Its a philosophy site! As such there are many terms for the contents of most the discussions being had. That many who post here have not had the opportunity to read any philosophy does not mean that the terms are meant as an insult.

Yes, and you seem to be the victim of premature submission!

Or maybe you're just a nasty spiteful bitch, that's used to having HER way all the time!!

You could have pointed out "ANYTHING" in my initial, but you chose the adversarial position, and because I don't swallow your premature load, you start getting all indignant! You should be SURE before you start condescendingly pigeon holing people, as you may step on their toes, but obviously you don't GAF about that, sitting behind your keyboard!
"The Bravery of Being Out of Range." --Roger Waters-- applies not only to WMD, but words of spiteful intent as well.

Again, a truly wise individual needs not belittle, through name calling/labeling/deception, etc. Understanding, Truth, Intellect, Honesty, Integrity and Frankness are the only measures of Wisdom.

I honestly tried to be diplomatic in my delivery with my initial to you in this thread, that you admittedly misunderstood. And you replied by labeling me with so called terms of philosophy that no one would normally be proud of owing up to, that are in fact categorically incorrect. Read the definitions, oh yeah I forgot you and the dictionary don't get along too well. That's probably the problem right there.

Look, lets stop playing the blame game. I can see that we are obviously not learning anything from it. Lets call it a draw. Lets say that neither of 'us' meant to be nasty or condescending towards the other, truce???

But you can bet your bottom dollar that I shall be diplomatic in the future, with every post of yours I respond too, and if I hear obvious condescension from you as a result of my difference of opinion, you'll receive a verbal onslaught like you've never witnessed before. And I'll expect the same!

Go ahead, since I responded to your message first, I owe it to you to have the last word, if you care to, otherwise I consider the matter closed.

[Arising_uk]

Yes, and you seem to be the victim of premature submission!

Or maybe you're just a nasty spiteful bitch, that's used to having HER way all the time!!

Ooo! You big butch man you!

You could have pointed out "ANYTHING" in my initial, but you chose the adversarial position, and because I don't swallow your premature load, you start getting all indignant! You should be SURE before you start condescendingly pigeon holing people, as you may step on their toes, but obviously you don't GAF about that, sitting behind your keyboard!
"The Bravery of Being Out of Range." --Roger Waters-- applies not only to WMD, but words of spiteful intent as well.

What? That like non-existent WMDs? I thought quoting others was a no-no?

Not sure what you mean by your "initial"? I'll assume you mean your quoting me, as such I replied to all of that post and pointed out everything I thought about it. You just decided to pick the bits you wished to respond to.

Sexual innuendo now!

Again, a truly wise individual needs not belittle, through name calling/labeling/deception, etc. Understanding, Truth, Intellect, Honesty, Integrity and Frankness are the only measures of Wisdom.

Then you appear to not be truly wise?

I honestly tried to be diplomatic in my delivery with my initial to you in this thread, that you admittedly misunderstood. And you replied by labeling me with so called terms of philosophy that no one would normally be proud of owing up to, that are in fact categorically incorrect. Read the definitions, oh yeah I forgot you and the dictionary don't get along too well. That's probably the problem right there.

Get a grip, I'm a nihilist, just not a pessimistic one. What's "the" dictionary when its at home? A philosophy one? Here's a definition from mine;

"Nihilism. A term popularized through its employment to characterize his own position by Bazarov, a character in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons(1862). Turgenev himself detested Bazarov, who was modelled on his own pet aversion N.A.Dobrolyubov. Yet this character became a model for a whole generation of radicals - believing in nothing save science, materialism, revolution, and (in the abstract) the People. The word has since been employed, usually by opponents, of various other destructive tendencies. ...".

In my reply to you I gave you a link to the many forms of nihilist that have appeared since then and asked you which one you meant by your dictionary quote, no reply? Now the way I understand the term is to describe those who think that there is no other objective meaning or purpose to existence other than the one that we apply and given your cancer crack in another post I accept that you may not be a nihilist, as you appear to think there is some other entity that has a purpose which we 'infect' in some way?

Look, lets stop playing the blame game. I can see that we are obviously not learning anything from it. Lets call it a draw. Lets say that neither of 'us' meant to be nasty or condescending towards the other, truce???

I have no idea what you are talking about? But am perfectly happy to return to actually discussing out thoughts. I'm not blaming anyone other than pointing out that if you use the quote function the way you did then people will assume you were talking about their words. Again you are hearing perfectly valid terms as condescension, they are not. If the terms do not apply then just say why rather than get all emotional, its a philosophy forum.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that I shall be diplomatic in the future, with every post of yours I respond too, and if I hear obvious condescension from you as a result of my difference of opinion, you'll receive a verbal onslaught like you've never witnessed before. And I'll expect the same!

You'll have to go some, as we've had some right characters upon this forum but I'm happy with this.

Go ahead, since I responded to your message first, I owe it to you to have the last word, if you care to, otherwise I consider the matter closed.

Your prerogative.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Society/civilization destroys the very essence of life itself, but only because of mankind's selfish quest for money and power at all costs

[Arising_uk]

Society/civilization destroys the very essence of life itself, but only because of mankind's selfish quest for money and power at all costs

Ah! I do take it back, you may not be a nihilist. What is this very "essence of life"?

Why is it not just a consequence of Man's need to survive and the result of how they do it, i.e. to change the environment to suit themselves and us being very successful at this.

Why does it have to be a psychological issue? Why is it not a consequence of there not being enough resources and what there are being unevenly distributed. Although I can see that this will lead to power relations.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Society/civilization destroys the very essence of life itself, but only because of mankind's selfish quest for money and power at all costs

Ah! I do take it back, you may not be a nihilist. What is this very "essence of life"?
Look to my Pseudonym for your answer. If you care, I shall expound!

Why is it not just a consequence of Man's need to survive and the result of how they do it, i.e. to change the environment to suit themselves and us being very successful at this.
Arising, I'm going to dissect your words above, not as a tool to humiliate, but to illustrate how we differ.

The first word I have a problem with is "just" this to me indicates that what follows is the only way in which it can be seen, and that's just not true, it's merely one perspective. The next one is "need" and is where I see the selfishness, cancer and thus the "killing oneself to live" metaphor, show their contradictory/self defeating faces. I see, "and the result of how they do it" as dismissive, as in that's just the way it is. As if it can't be changed. Many times I've seen someone use the "it's just human nature" argument, and I argue that human nature, in it's entirety, is not something that we are necessarily subject to, and can be a product of our knowledge, understanding and desire to change ourselves, (thus evolution), in being more efficient and connected with this symbiosis that is planet earth, like we once were. Next is "change the environment," and "suit themselves," a huge mistake, which is apparent when you understand the cancer metaphor. Finally the word "successful" for me, is in debate. You point it at something specific, but I still say it is not necessarily success due to the cancer metaphor (killing oneself to live).

Why does it have to be a psychological issue? Why is it not a consequence of there not being enough resources and what there are being unevenly distributed. Although I can see that this will lead to power relations.
I see that most think one dimensionally (from one perspective). From within, and only within, this one perspective one could see the above as true, and it is, from within this one perspective. You have to climb out of it and by doing so you see that it's all about man's needs, want's and desires. The thing is, is that there are several methods of his obtaining these scattered resources (things) that he needs wants and desires, wherein lies this other perspective. His mind (psyche) is responsible for the method he chooses in obtaining needs, want's and desires, and therein lies the problem. He has chosen to attach hidden selfish agendas to the procurement of these resources, for every other man save himself, and in doing so, all our problems are manifest.

That's the way I see it!

[Arising_uk]

Look to my Pseudonym for your answer. If you care, I shall expound!

Expound away.

Arising, I'm going to dissect your words above, not as a tool to humiliate, but to illustrate how we differ.

No need for the caveats as I have no emotional issues with critique.

The first word I have a problem with is "just" this to me indicates that what follows is the only way in which it can be seen, and that's just not true, it's merely one perspective. ...

Fair enough, "Its a consequence of ..."

The next one is "need" and is where I see the selfishness, cancer and thus the "killing oneself to live" metaphor, show their contradictory/self defeating faces. ...

Not sure what this "killing oneself to live" is about? I was just referring to the 'need' of survival, to stay alive, etc.

I see, "and the result of how they do it" as dismissive, as in that's just the way it is. As if it can't be changed. Many times I've seen someone use the "it's just human nature" argument, and I argue that human nature, in it's entirety, is not something that we are necessarily subject to, and can be a product of our knowledge, understanding and desire to change ourselves, (thus evolution), in being more efficient and connected with this symbiosis that is planet earth, like we once were. Next is "change the environment," and "suit themselves," a huge mistake, which is apparent when you understand the cancer metaphor. Finally the word "successful" for me, is in debate. You point it at something specific, but I still say it is not necessarily success due to the cancer metaphor (killing oneself to live)

Not my intention, this was to point out that historically these are better reasons than some psychological dysfunction. I don't doubt that in some idealist world we could decide to change things and share resources equitably, take a lower standard of living for some to improve the miserable lot of many.

I'm unsure about this symbiotic utopia you say we once were in, when was this? You talk as tho' the world is living to excess but the bulk of the world lives very environmentally frugally, the bulk make very little impact upon resources, the bulk of resources and environmental damage has been done by the few, namely the 'west' and even more namely when it comes to resource consumption, America. No issue with this myself as its historical circumstance but for the past sixty odd years this view of economic consumption and individual happiness has been actively promoted and enforced by arms around the world. As such we now have at least two nations of over two billion people who wish this dream and they are going hell for leather for it so I think this 'cancer' metaphor is about to become an epidemic and I seriously doubt any psychological solution for it, as even if the 'west' decides to abandon this model and take a massive cut in living standards I doubt this example will halt the expansion of the others, namely because they've been in relative poverty for to long now so the issue of scarce resources and expanding energy requirements is going to increase even more. So I think we need to think big and near-space is full of resources that could enable us to build the vast structures and projects we need to meet the technological world. For example, in the UK we should build 'green' energy sources like the Severn Barrage and the newer versions of Salters Duck as we have the coastline to exploit such things.

I see that most think one dimensionally (from one perspective). From within, and only within, this one perspective one could see the above as true, and it is, from within this one perspective. You have to climb out of it and by doing so you see that it's all about man's needs, want's and desires. The thing is, is that there are several methods of his obtaining these scattered resources (things) that he needs wants and desires, wherein lies this other perspective. His mind (psyche) is responsible for the method he chooses in obtaining needs, want's and desires, and therein lies the problem. He has chosen to attach hidden selfish agendas to the procurement of these resources, for every other man save himself, and in doing so, all our problems are manifest.

That's the way I see it!

How are you going to change this? Me, I think its more about scarcity and our methods of production, if we solve this to some extent then social relations would be changed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Look to my Pseudonym for your answer. If you care, I shall expound!

Expound away.

Arising, I'm going to dissect your words above, not as a tool to humiliate, but to illustrate how we differ.

No need for the caveats as I have no emotional issues with critique.

The first word I have a problem with is "just" this to me indicates that what follows is the only way in which it can be seen, and that's just not true, it's merely one perspective. ...

Fair enough, "Its a consequence of ..."

The next one is "need" and is where I see the selfishness, cancer and thus the "killing oneself to live" metaphor, show their contradictory/self defeating faces. ...

Not sure what this "killing oneself to live" is about? I was just referring to the 'need' of survival, to stay alive, etc.

I see, "and the result of how they do it" as dismissive, as in that's just the way it is. As if it can't be changed. Many times I've seen someone use the "it's just human nature" argument, and I argue that human nature, in it's entirety, is not something that we are necessarily subject to, and can be a product of our knowledge, understanding and desire to change ourselves, (thus evolution), in being more efficient and connected with this symbiosis that is planet earth, like we once were. Next is "change the environment," and "suit themselves," a huge mistake, which is apparent when you understand the cancer metaphor. Finally the word "successful" for me, is in debate. You point it at something specific, but I still say it is not necessarily success due to the cancer metaphor (killing oneself to live)

Not my intention, this was to point out that historically these are better reasons than some psychological dysfunction.

This post, dealing with only this.
First a dictionary reference for grounding: (new style so as not confuse)
---------------------------------------------------------------
rea·son /ˈrizən/ [ree-zuhn]
noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic: a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy:
..a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
..b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
..c. Kantianism . the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
verb (used with object)
11. to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).
12. to conclude or infer.
13. to convince, persuade, etc., by reasoning.
14. to support with reasons.
Idioms
15. bring (someone) to reason, to induce a change of opinion in (someone) through presentation of arguments; convince: The mother tried to bring her rebellious daughter to reason.
16. by reason of, on account of; because of: He was consulted about the problem by reason of his long experience.
17. in / within reason, in accord with reason; justifiable; proper: She tried to keep her demands in reason.
18. stand to reason, to be clear, obvious, or logical: With such an upbringing it stands to reason that the child will be spoiled.
19. with reason, with justification; properly: The government is concerned about the latest crisis, and with reason.

Origin: 1175–1225; Middle English resoun, reisun (noun) < Old French reisun, reson < Latin ratiōn- (stem of ratiō ) ratio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
Man that's a lot, but we're only concerned with the noun portion. Notice def#5, 'not psychological dysfunction,' hmmmm. The very reason, one reasons, as they do, could be due to insanity, or purely ignorance.

I don't doubt that in some idealist world we could decide to change things and share resources equitably,
Thank you, but you balk with the inclusion of 'idealist,' but in fact, the truths of the realists today, were born on the dreams of the idealists of yesterday, and their future truths shall be born of the idealists of today. The realists are the lazy pessimists, (that's just the way it is, good, we can just sit back and watch, he, he, he, he, he.), the idealists are the optimists full of vigor, (What's next on the list of change, me?-->{us}, good, lets go, alright!), with utopia on the horizon!

take a lower standard of living for some to improve the miserable lot of many.
And then selfishness rears it's hideous head! me, me, me, me, me, wherein lies the problem, the psychological flaw, the sickness! The twistedness(my word) of the me's shall be the annihilation of us all! Because their sickness precludes their knowledge of the fact that they're killing themselves to live, the cancer that they are!

The rest for later, unless...

I'm unsure about this symbiotic utopia you say we once were in, when was this? You talk as tho' the world is living to excess but the bulk of the world lives very environmentally frugally, the bulk make very little impact upon resources, the bulk of resources and environmental damage has been done by the few, namely the 'west' and even more namely when it comes to resource consumption, America. No issue with this myself as its historical circumstance but for the past sixty odd years this view of economic consumption and individual happiness has been actively promoted and enforced by arms around the world. As such we now have at least two nations of over two billion people who wish this dream and they are going hell for leather for it so I think this 'cancer' metaphor is about to become an epidemic and I seriously doubt any psychological solution for it, as even if the 'west' decides to abandon this model and take a massive cut in living standards I doubt this example will halt the expansion of the others, namely because they've been in relative poverty for to long now so the issue of scarce resources and expanding energy requirements is going to increase even more. So I think we need to think big and near-space is full of resources that could enable us to build the vast structures and projects we need to meet the technological world. For example, in the UK we should build 'green' energy sources like the Severn Barrage and the newer versions of Salters Duck as we have the coastline to exploit such things.

I see that most think one dimensionally (from one perspective). From within, and only within, this one perspective one could see the above as true, and it is, from within this one perspective. You have to climb out of it and by doing so you see that it's all about man's needs, want's and desires. The thing is, is that there are several methods of his obtaining these scattered resources (things) that he needs wants and desires, wherein lies this other perspective. His mind (psyche) is responsible for the method he chooses in obtaining needs, want's and desires, and therein lies the problem. He has chosen to attach hidden selfish agendas to the procurement of these resources, for every other man save himself, and in doing so, all our problems are manifest.

That's the way I see it!

How are you going to change this? Me, I think its more about scarcity and our methods of production, if we solve this to some extent then social relations would be changed.